I have always believed that law enforcement should answer its critics. So I’m going to answer mine.

In 2007, I was one of probably 100,000 cops who were burned out, pissed off, and sought emancipation from my employer. So I left my agency and went to work for Police Magazine/PoliceMag.com. These days I largely write about what I want and when I want, a situation that avails me the ancillary luxury of taking to task those things I resented when I worked for the department.

Still, my blogs are certainly vulnerable to criticism. Rarely have I re-read one of my treatises that didn't make me cringe at some grammatical lapse, misspelling, or overlooked point that I wanted to make.

But such oversights rarely garner criticism from the readers.

No, what I get taken to task for is stuff that's been willfully misread, excerpted, and recycled elsewhere to benefit someone else's inflammatory arguments. Normally, I'd hesitate to offer up their links and contribute to the notoriety they obviously covet, but in deference to fairness, I include some herein.

Our assailants are by and large self-professed anarchists. As such, some readers might reasonably wonder why the hell I would even want to comment on the matter. After all, to paraphrase Mark Twain, you do not want to get into a pissing contest with someone who buys ink by the barrel or in this day and age Website code.

Still, one sore spot with me has been law enforcement's unwillingness to confront its critics, so I feel obligated to at least comment on the absurdities perpetrated against me.

One cretin, apparently oblivious of the fact that the author of "1984" and "Animal Farm" had himself once been an officer, invoked George Orwell's name in rebuking the law enforcement profession. Another even wished that my wife be kicked in the head despite the fact that she's not likely to find herself wrestling with the long arm of the law.

In the same blog, I waxed nostalgically on the old days when cops kicked ass and took names. I was reflecting back to the time before I was on the job when criminals thought twice before committing their crimes if only for the inevitable ass-thumping that came in their wake. After all, that's what made my friends and me think twice before indulging in some criminal activity back when I was a young punk.

Alas, one enterprising journalist resurrected the matter a month later, inferring that *I'd* been the one administering said ass-thumping. He imposed a review of my personnel jacket upon my former department which, to its everlasting shame, obliged him and wasted both their time and effort.

One critic blasted the same blog by saying that I'd said the ONLY thing the El Monte cop was guilty of was working in the wrong era: Wrong. I asserted that ONE thing he was inarguably guilty of was working in the wrong era. For all I knew, (at the time of that writing) he might have been a no-limit idiot.

Another repeat offender-who goes by the nom de plume of Radgeek-has re-characterized what I've said, as well: "..and those segments of society who have fundamentally failed to hold their own [sic] accountable" and, just so we're clear, by those segments of society, Scoville means niggers. Also, I guess he's pissed off that Dick Wolf decided to cast Ice-T as a cop in Law and Order: SVU."

So, to Radgeek's mind, my alluding to jury nullification practices advocated by some segments of society is an indicator of racism. I won't dignify his assumptions regarding the N-word, but he's right about one thing: I hate the fact that Ice-T, the man responsible for the song "Cop Killer," was cast as a cop in "Law and Order: SVU" and consider his hiring to be a slap in the face of law enforcement.

Most recently, Radgeek accused me of hyperbole when I cautioned against the ever increasing dangers of the job, citing a comparison of the number of officers feloniously killed in 1974 and today.

Radgeek's error is two-fold: First, he confuses the ubiquitous and lethal threats of today with the realized lethality of the past. Second, he ignores broad-sweeping changes and innovations within law enforcement practices over the past 35 years that have offset these growing external threats.

A lot has changed in law enforcement since 1974. Consider the following:

SWAT: Officers were more apt to enter barricade situations without ballistic shields, tactical training, and other protections available to them today.

Gun Grab Prevention: At least seven officers killed in 1974 were a result of weapon takeaways.

Portable Radios: In 1974, the radio was in the car, not on the officer.

Improved Medical Care: Wounded officers have a much better chance of survival than in 1974.

Concealable Body Armor: Routinely worn today, ballistic vests were virtually unheard of in the early seventies. Since 1974, thousands of officers' lives have been saved thanks to protective gear.

In short, tactically, procedurally, and logistically officers are better suited to perform the job. But just because they have developed compensatory skill sets and logistics to better combat the growing threats of the job does not mitigate the reality of those threats.

And those threats cover the gamut. First responders are expected to take on active shooters. They are asked to confront unprecedented numbers of gang members. They are increasingly apt to be targeted for merely wearing the uniform, as evidenced by three separate attackers who killed a total of 11 officers in 2009, an unprecedented event.

Just because such threats have been successfully mitigated does not make them any less inherently dangerous. If anything, it is a reflection of the growing threats in today's social climate that the law enforcement community continues to compensate for them through training, logistics, and policy changes.

Unfortunately, many keyboard warriors such as Radgeek do not possess the faculties commensurate to their self-appointed tasks, and reveal themselves to be little more than messy thinkers who, for all their bloviating, lack the intellectual discipline to offer cogent arguments.

Why does this matter? Well, Radgeek got a solid thumbs up by a reader when he made a jovial comment about cops "getting themselves killed."

And so, that wonderful opening quote from Gracian.

For what it's worth, it's amusing that these critics attack me. For I don't fall lockstep in place with everything on law enforcement's radar. Like many cops, I have serious reservations about the war on drugs, and am far more concerned about the guy who's going to harm another person than someone who's indulging in some sordid vice. If it were up to me, I'd let the doper do his thing in his room so long as he stayed there.

But cops by and large are not allowed to pick and choose the laws they enforce.

And when it came to the execution of my duties, I used every means available to avoid force, when possible. But it won't matter to my critics that I talked most arrestees into the back seat or that I had an uncanny ability to talk down emotionally compromised souls. It doesn't matter that I've written columns about the need to confront bad cops or actually written about my own professional lapses.

They'll still brand me a usurper of their rights and demand a new brand of justice. One that apparently includes kicking my wife in the head.

Comments (2)

Displaying 1 - 2 of 2

ROB ROY @ 3/5/2010 12:22 AM

MR. Scoville, just like I commented when you wrote it before. On one side you have the Police Officer that is a contributing member of society and then you have the scum bag P.O.S. that has been nothing but a dreg of society. Said Police Officer kick's said scumbag in the head. SO WHAT!!!!

dep2386 @ 3/7/2010 8:48 PM

Society will get the type of law enforcement it deserves. Today we are just supposed to play hug-a-thug. We are dealing with customers. I don't endorse brutality but sometimes you do have to snatch somebody up to get their attention. I am glad my career is coming to an end. It's like make the streets safe, protect my property, and run the bad guys off, but don't hurt anybody's feelings.

Loading...

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Blog Posts

Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.

Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!